Trump's Gunboat Diplomacy in Stages

“Gunboat diplomacy” is a somewhat old-fashioned term, harking back to the era of large naval vessels projecting state power. But the underlying concept — the use or threatened use of military force or advanced weapons systems to influence another state’s behaviour, often short of full-scale war — remains highly relevant in our era. Here we consider the recent US deliberations over supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine (which could strike deep into Russian territory) as a contemporary case-study. The analysis will touch on the stages of escalation, the diplomatic and military trade-offs, the humanitarian implications, and the strategic logic (and dangers) of skipping intermediate steps.

Stages in Gunboat Diplomacy: A Conceptual Framework

A key argument for employing gunboat diplomacy in stages is that each incremental step allows for signalling, escalation control, reaction by adversaries, and adjustment by the initiating power. The typical stages might include:

1. Signal posture: Deploy forces or weapons capabilities visibly (or announce intention) to convey resolve without immediate action.

   
   

2. Threat of action: Press further by publicly signalling that more substantial measures may follow if demands are not met.

   
   

3. Limited employment: Use military assets in a restrained way to reinforce credibility of the threat, without full commitment.

   
   

4. Full-scale employment: If earlier steps fail, employ the power to compel or punish.

   
   

5. Negotiation and settlement: Once the adversary is sufficiently pressured, shift to diplomatic negotiation.

The virtues of staging include giving adversaries opportunity to back down, avoiding over-escalation, preserving room for diplomacy, signalling seriousness without commitment, and limiting risks. The dangers of skipping stages include mis-calculating adversary reaction, provoking uncontrolled escalation, undermining credibility (if the sudden leap is seen as bluff), and creating humanitarian spill-over.

The Tomahawk Case: US Consideration and Signals

In the case of Ukraine, the US has lately signalled that it is considering supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. These missiles have a range up to some 1,500 miles (2,500 km) and would permit strikes deep into Russian territory — including Moscow, if launched from Ukrainian soil. The US Vice-President, J.D. Vance, stated the US was “looking at” Ukraine’s request for Tomahawks, though the final decision rested with President Trump.  Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that any supply would initiate a “qualitatively new stage of escalation” in US-Russia relations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly sought the missiles, arguing that their prospect puts pressure on Russia to negotiate. At the same time, the US has been reticent: President Trump has expressed concerns about escalation, about stocking his own inventory of Tomahawks and about Ukraine’s ability to operate such complex weapons. 

Thus the US has employed a staged approach: first signalling possibility, then maintaining a pause while evaluating escalation risks and diplomatic opportunities. The US has not yet moved directly to full supply and deployment.

Why a Staged Approach Makes Sense in This Case

There are several reasons why the staged model is appropriate here:

• Escalation control: The mere suggestion of Tomahawk supply introduces a new dimension into the war — Ukraine’s ability to strike deep into Russia. That carries a risk of shifting the conflict dynamics, possibly drawing direct Russian retaliation or wider confrontation (including with NATO). By signalling but not (yet) delivering, the US retains pressure while avoiding immediate escalation. Russian officials have explicitly warned that such a step would provoke a major shift. 

  
  

• Signalling and leverage: The US’s announcement that she may supply the missiles sends a message to Moscow that the status quo is unsustainable, even if the missiles are never delivered. As one analysis put it: “the mere threat of sending them might be enough to keep Russia in check.” The staged approach allows the US to use the possibility of supply as a bargaining chip in diplomacy.

  
  

• Operational and logistical feasibility: The US has noted that Ukraine may lack the infrastructure, training and platforms to operate Tomahawks effectively, and the US inventory itself is committed. A direct leap to supply might risk ineffective use, or worse, misuse leading to unintended escalation.

  
  

• Diplomatic space: By delaying actual delivery, the US preserves diplomatic options — including negotiations with Russia and her allies, and coordination with NATO. A rushed supply could eliminate room for negotiation or send signals that undermine diplomatic initiatives. Indeed, President Trump appears to have shifted his position multiple times, both after a call with Putin and yesterday 31 October 2025. This suggests that he is prioritising diplomacy over escalation at the current time.

• Humanitarian and strategic consequences: A supply of such long-range missiles could lead to strikes into Russian territory with potential for civilian casualties, broader escalation and the risk of a regional or even global crisis. An incremental approach allows assessment of these consequences more carefully.

But Should Gunboat Diplomacy Always Be Staged?

While the case for a staged approach is strong, it is not universally valid that gunboat diplomacy must always proceed in stages. Circumstances may dictate a faster or even immediate leap. Several considerations arise:

• Urgency and opportunity: If rapid action is required to deter imminent wrongdoing or to prevent a strategic collapse, a full-scale move may be justified without the luxury of incremental steps. Waiting may permit the adversary to exploit the pause.

  
  

• Credibility and deterrence: In some contexts the threat of gradual escalation may not be credible; adversaries might call one's bluff. A decisive and immediate action may establish credibility rapidly.

  
  

• Changing strategic balance: If the adversary is about to deliver a decisive blow, a swift action may pre-empt failure. Incremental steps might be overtaken by events.

  
  

• Alliance and political coherence: If the actor must maintain the confidence of allies or public opinion, delaying may appear weak and a stronger immediate move may be necessary to reassure partners.

While staging offers advantages, it is not a universal prescription. The decision needs to be calibrated to the specific strategic, operational, diplomatic and humanitarian context.

Why Skipping Stages Can Be Dangerous: Lessons from the Tomahawk Context

In the current Ukraine-Russia war scenario, skipping the staged approach and immediately supplying Tomahawks might carry significant dangers:

• Unintended escalation: Russia has warned that transfer would mark a new stage of escalation, possibly pulling Russia closer to NATO confrontation or even nuclear thresholds. A sudden leap could trigger uncontrollable responses.

  
  

• Logistical and operational risk: If Ukraine lacks the capacity to employ the missiles properly, the weapons might sit idle or be misused, undermining deterrence and credibility. President Trump has cited this very concern. 

  
  

• Diplomatic isolation: Allies may not all be comfortable with such a step; moving too quickly could divide coalition support, diminish diplomatic leverage and reduce freedom of manoeuvre.

  
  

• Humanitarian and reputation consequences: Deep strikes into Russia could cause civilian casualties and provoke retaliatory strikes, raising humanitarian and moral risks. A sudden leap might reduce ability to manage or limit damage.

  
  

• Loss of signalling advantage: Part of the value lies in signalling — if one goes directly to full supply, the threat is consumed and loses its strategic weight. Moreover the adversary gets less opportunity to back down before crisis hits.

Counterargument: When a Direct Leap Might Be Preferable

Despite the above, one could argue that in the Ukraine case the US could consider an immediate supply of Tomahawks if one judged that further delay would cost Kyiv the war or allow Russia to consolidate gains irreversibly. If Russia were on the verge of a decisive victory, incrementalism might permit a fait accompli. Russia is nowhere near a decisive victory at the current time. Nevertheless if allies are already aligned and Ukraine is ready, the delay might favour Russian escalation by other means (e.g. nuclear, air superiority, strategic infrastructure strikes). In that scenario, the US might judge that the strategic benefits of decisive action outweigh the risks.

Will the US do it?

In the light of the US government’s recent statements, the case for staged gunboat diplomacy appears compelling. The United States has adopted a measured approach: signalling possibility, evaluating risks, preserving diplomacy, and holding off definitive action. That aligns with sound strategic logic: it maintains deterrence, preserves diplomatic space, mitigates escalation, and allows for adjustment based on adversary response.

However it would be erroneous to hold that all gunboat diplomacy must proceed in stages under all circumstances. Each context—its urgency, the state of the adversary, the capability of the actor, the risks of delay—matters. Particularly in a high-stakes war such as Ukraine’s, the calculus may at some point favour a decisive leap rather than incremental steps.

While staging should be the default mode in most instances of diplomacy of this kind, only a thorough strategic assessment—of adversary reaction, allied alignment, operational readiness, humanitarian consequences and diplomatic context—can justify either a gradual approach or a rapid leap. In the US-Ukraine-Russia case we are observing how the staging approach retains strategic flexibility; Russia has brushed off recent US sanctions as an economic cost her people will have to bear; whether or when to move to the next stage of providing weapons capable of devastating Russia's military-industrial complex remains the key question.